Tom Hicks

Dwight Banton pleaded guilty to possession of a handgun with readily accessible ammunition, breach of a firearms prohibition order, and possession of MDMA for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown and defence proposed a joint submission for a global sentence of three years imprisonment, less pre-trial custody credit (PTCC).

The court reluctantly accepted the enhanced PTCC calculation of 23 months, leading to a remaining sentence of 13 months imprisonment.

Ancillary orders for a lifetime firearms prohibition and DNA sample were also granted.

The accused, George Giaouris, was charged with assaulting Ms. Cordero causing her bodily harm and threatening her with death.

The central issue was self-defence under s. 34 of the Criminal Code.

The court found a reasonable doubt that the complainant initiated the physical altercation, thus satisfying the first element of self-defence.

However, the court concluded that the force used by the accused, which resulted in severe injuries to the complainant, was excessive and disproportionate to the perceived threat, failing the reasonableness requirement of s. 34(1)(c).

The accused was found guilty of assault causing bodily harm but not guilty of threatening, as the threat was conditional and no force was used in uttering it.

Multiple appellants appealed convictions for Highway Traffic Act offences, challenging the dismissal of their s. 11(b) Charter motions for stay of proceedings based on delay.

The central issue was whether the presumptive ceiling of 18 months established in R. v. Jordan applies to Provincial Offences Act Part I prosecutions, or whether a lower ceiling applies to Highway Traffic Act cases.

The appellants argued for ceilings of either 13 months or 12 months, while the respondent contended that the 18-month ceiling applies uniformly.

The court upheld the 18-month ceiling, finding no demonstrated delay problem in Highway Traffic Act prosecutions and rejecting a patchwork approach to presumptive ceilings.

One appellant also raised additional grounds regarding evidentiary sufficiency and proof of the date of the offence, both of which were dismissed.

The defendant was charged with impaired driving following a rear-end motor vehicle collision on March 8, 2018.

The Crown alleged the defendant was impaired by alcohol based on observations of the accident witness, police officer, and breath technician.

The defendant testified that the collision resulted from distraction caused by text messages from his wife, and that he had consumed approximately five beers over several hours at a dinner with friends but felt no effects of alcohol.

The court found that the Crown failed to prove impairment beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted the defendant.

The accused was charged with impaired operation contrary to section 253(1)(a) of the Criminal Code and failing to comply with an approved instrument demand contrary to section 254(5).

The Crown relied on evidence of erratic driving observed by an independent witness over a 10-minute period, including lane weaving, failure to respond to traffic lights, and excessive speed.

The accused provided one breath sample showing 142 mgs of alcohol but failed to provide a suitable second sample after approximately nine attempts.

The court found the Crown proved both charges beyond a reasonable doubt based on the credible driving evidence and the accused's deliberate failure to provide the second sample.

The accused was charged with "Over 80" following a traffic stop for running a red light.

The Crown obtained breath samples through an Approved Instrument (AI) demand after the accused failed an Approved Screening Device (ASD) test.

The defence challenged the lawfulness of the AI demand on the basis that it was made in English to an accused with limited English proficiency, and that subsequent translation by a police officer did not cure the defect.

The court found that the initial demand by the arresting officer was lawful under s. 254(3) of the Criminal Code, that lack of understanding due to language difficulty does not invalidate the demand, and that the demand was properly translated into Mandarin before testing.

The court also found that even if there were a technical breach, exclusion of evidence would not be warranted under s. 24(2).

The accused was found guilty.

The accused was charged with operating a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol and operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration exceeding 80 mg per 100 mL of blood.

The Crown's case relied on civilian witness testimony of erratic driving, police observations of impairment, and breath sample results of 185 mg and 176 mg.

The defence advanced a "last drink" argument under section 258(1)(d.1) of the Criminal Code, claiming the accused consumed minimal alcohol before driving and substantial alcohol after arriving home.

The trial judge rejected the defence evidence as incredible and fabricated, finding the accused had consumed substantial alcohol prior to driving.

The court found the statutory presumptions of identity were not rebutted and convicted on both charges.

Two defendants pleaded guilty to multiple counts of residential break and enter, theft, conspiracy to steal motor vehicles, and possession of property obtained by crime.

The offences were part of "Project Yellowbird," a sophisticated burglary ring targeting affluent Toronto neighbourhoods from late 2013 to August 2014.

The ring stole high-end vehicles, jewelry, electronics, and cash, with losses at individual locations reaching hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Buczel, a first-time offender, appeared to be a central figure in the organization based on phone records and seized property.

Czeranowski had a significant prior record for similar offences.

The court imposed sentences of four years for Buczel and four and a half years for Czeranowski, with credit for pre-sentence custody applied at a 1.5:1 ratio.

The accused appeared before the court seeking judicial interim release (bail) on 27 charges, including break and enter, theft of motor vehicles, and offences committed in association with a criminal organization.

The Crown opposed release, citing concerns under the secondary ground (public safety).

The accused proposed his uncle and aunt as sureties with a $10,000 pledge and a release plan involving residence with the sureties and a curfew.

The court found that although the sureties were credible and willing, the accused's conduct following his previous release on bail in July 2014—during which he continued criminal activity and stored stolen goods in his home—demonstrated he would not comply with bail conditions.

The court denied bail and ordered detention.

The defendant was charged with assault and obstructing police following an incident on Highway 400 where his vehicle was involved in a rear-end collision.

After initially resisting the officer's directive to have his vehicle towed, the defendant pushed a tow truck driver who was attempting to remove the defendant's family from the vehicle.

The court found the defendant not guilty of obstructing police due to reasonable doubt regarding whether the obstruction continued at the time of arrest, and not guilty of assault on the basis of self-defence under section 34 of the Criminal Code, finding the defendant had a reasonable apprehension of threat to his family and the force used was proportionate.